In re Taylor

13 A.D.3d 973, 786 N.Y.S.2d 364, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15857
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 23, 2004
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 13 A.D.3d 973 (In re Taylor) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re Taylor, 13 A.D.3d 973, 786 N.Y.S.2d 364, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15857 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Respondent, an Otsego County attorney, was suspended indefinitely by this Court in October 2000 (Matter of Taylor, 276 AD2d 821 [2000]). He now applies for reinstatement. Petitioner advises that it does not oppose the application.

We conclude that respondent has substantially complied with the provisions of the order which suspended him and with this Court’s rules regulating the conduct of suspended attorrieys (see 22 NYCRR 806.9). We are also satisfied that respondent has complied with the requirements of this Court’s rules governing reinstatement (see 22 NYCRR 806.12) and that he possesses the character and fitness to resume the practice of law.

[974]*974Accordingly, the application is granted and respondent is reinstated to the practice of law, effective immediately. However, we condition respondent’s reinstatement upon his submission to petitioner, for two years following the date of this decision, of semiannual psychiatric reports assessing his continuing capacity to practice law. Petitioner shall report any failure to meet that condition to this Court.

Peters, J.P., Mugglin, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that respondent’s application is granted and he is reinstated as an attorney and counselor-at-law of the State of New York, upon the condition set forth in this decision, effective immediately.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In re Cronin
27 A.D.3d 829 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
13 A.D.3d 973, 786 N.Y.S.2d 364, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15857, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-taylor-nyappdiv-2004.